(O&M)Kishan Chand Vij v. Satish Kumar Marwaha Etc

IN Kishan C Satish Ku

CORAM Present :

ROHIT K CM-1967

27 of the Ashok Ku

23.05.199 A-1. and docum N THE HIGH COURT OF PUN AT CHANDIG Chand Vij Versus umar Marwaha etc.

Judg Whether only the operati pronounced or whether the Full Judgment M : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE * * Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate Mr. Ankush Singla, Advocat Mr. Akash Singla, Advocate Mr. Rajesh Garg, Sr. Advoca Ms. Neha Matharoo, Advoca Mr. Mandeep Singh, Advoca * *

KAPOOR, J. 7-C-2025 The instant application has e Code of Civil Procedure, for umar, Clerk recorded on 13.08 96, along with the translated ve For the reasons stated in the ments Annexures A-1 and A-1/A Registry is directed to tag the NJAB AND HARYANA GARH RSA No.278 of 2005 (O&M) …. Appellant …. Respondents Reserved on: 14.11.2025 Pronounced on: 12.02.2026 gment uploaded on: 27.02.2026 ive part of the judgment is e full judgment is pronounced: ROHIT KAPOOR ; te & for the appellant. ate with ate & ate for the respondents. been filed under order 41 Rule placing on record statement of

8.1998 in Civil Suit No.174 of ersion, as Annexure A-1/A and application the same is allowed A are taken on record. e same at appropriate place.

) t s s : e f f d d

RSA No.2

¶1appellant-representa by the lea responden dated 06. Division)

¶2before the and the re Factual B

¶3owners of land parc 4278 (0k. the headn late Maha garage, by (Gregoria been trans 4 Fagun, S

¶4partnershi Dass, upo 278 of 2005 The present regular second -defendant (now deceased an atives), against judgment and d arned District Judge, Kapurthala, nts-plaintiffs has been allowed

03.2003 passed by the learned , Kapurthala, has been set aside. The parties shall hereinafter e trial court, i.e. the appellant s espondents shall be referred as 'p Background Briefly stated, the claim of f the suit land measuring about 1 cel measuring 3 kanal 4 marlas .-9m.), 4282/1 (2k.-13m.), and 4 note of the plaint. This land parc araja of Kapurthala for the pu y one Sh. Jagan Nath Aggarwa an Calendar 1926). Subsequentl sferred in his favour by issuance Samvat 1989, (12th March 1932 Sh. Jagan Nath Aggarwa ip with Mathura Das and Kan on the said land as well as other

d appeal has been filed by the nd represented through legal decree dated 22.11.2004 passed , whereby the appeal filed by the and the judgment and decree Additional Civil Judge (Senior

be referred to as per their status shall be referred as 'defendant' plaintiffs'. f the plaintiffs is that they are 15 marlas, which was part of the s comprised in khasra numbers 4285/1 (0k.-2m.)as described in cel was taken on lease from the urpose of constructing a motor al during the year Samvat 1983 ly, the said land is stated to have e of a sanad by the Maharaja on 2). al started joint business in nshi Ram, sons of Lala Bishan property situated in Kapurthala, - e l d e e r s

e e s n e r

e n n n ,

Hoshiarpu including deed on 3 fell to th owners in Kanshi Ra along with was partit question further cl Chaudhar

¶5owners of partition d be tenant stated to Chaudhar property. over the s

¶6East Punj from the p of late S relationsh petition b ur and Raiya. The business was the immovable properties, by ex 30 Fagun, 1993 i.e. 12.03.1937. e share of Lala Mathra Dass a n possession of the same. The f am continued to do business in p h their brother Muni Lal and on tioned by executing a registered fell to the share of Hussan Lal aimed that some portion of the ry Hans Raj. After the death of Sh. Hussa f the property in question, in equ deed dated 25.05.1955, wherein in some portion of the property. have been executed in favour ry Hans Raj who is stated to h The possession of the defendan suit property was stated to be per Petition No.20 of 1985 was ab Rent Restriction Act, 1949 fo premises in dispute. The defend Sh. Hans Raj filed a reply/w hip of landlord and tenant on 13 by some of the plaintiffs was d

s divided amongst the partners, xecuting a registered dissolution The land/property in question and Kanshi Ram, who became family of Lala Mathra Dass and partnership amongst themselves, n 25.05.1955 the family property d partition deed. The property in l, father of the plaintiffs. It is property was on rent with one an Lal, the plaintiffs claim to be ual share. There is a recital in the Chaudhary Hans Raj is stated to A rent note dated 04.06.1955 is of the father of defendant, i.e. have become tenant in the suit nt and his predecessor-in-interest rmissive. s filed under Section 13 of the or the ejectment of the defendant dant along with other legal heirs written statement denying the

3.05.1986. The aforementioned dismissed on 15.06.1988 by the - , n n e d , y n s e e e o s . t t e t s e d e

Rent Con tenant and also dism injunction which wa

¶7became il from 13.0 and tenan from rais property w

¶8the suit p the same possession

¶9statement maintaina permanen dismissal merits, th that the No.5700/4 Chaudhar was issue ntroller, Kapurthala, by holding t d landlord between the parties. T missed on 25.04.1990. The plain n against the defendant during th as withdrawn. The plaintiffs claimed that t llegal and unauthorized, and his

05.1986, i.e. the date when he de nt. Suit for permanent injunctio sing construction/re-constructio was also filed, which was dismis As per the plaintiffs, they re roperty on numerous occasions e, they were constrained to n. On receipt of notice, the t and took certain prelim ability of the suit on the ground o nt injunction was withdrawn), lim of ejectment petition), non-jo he averments made in the plaint suit property is in fact Aba 4282min. The defendant claim ry (First Chaudhary) of Yakka ed in his favour and therefore, h

that there was no relationship of The appeal against the order was ntiffs filed a suit for permanent he pendency of the rent petition, the possession of the defendant s status was that of a trespasser enied the relationship of landlord on for restraining the defendant on upon any portion of the ssed as withdrawn. equested the defendant to vacate and on his refusal to accede to file the suit in question, for e defendant filed his written minary objections regarding of res judicata (since the suit for mitation, estoppel (on account of inder of necessary parties. On were denied and it was claimed adi Deh and falls in Khasra med that his father was Agazi a Khana, Kapurthala and sanad he was the owner in possession. - f s t , t r d t e e o r n g r f n d a i d .

The stand the site ab the name that 10 ye started ru being run father of t and unint interest extinguish way of ad and has m

¶10by the de facts state Issues

¶11framed: d of the defendant was that his fa bout 67 years ago and the electri of his father who died in the y ears after the partition of the cou unning a dairy on the site in qu n on the site by the defendant, ti the defendant and he himself, ha terrupted possession of the site of the plaintiffs or their hed and the defendant became dverse possession, which is hos matured into full ownership of the The plaintiffs filed replicatio fendant, denying the averments ed in the plaint. From the pleadings of the pa 1) Whether the plaintiffs a possession of the suit prop 2) Whether the present suit i the earlier suit on 2.4.198 3) Whether the plaintiffs a conduct from filing this su 4) Whether the suit is bad parties? OPD

father had raised construction on c and water connections were in year 1975. It was further stated untry, the father of the defendant uestion and the said dairy was ill date. It was claimed that the ave been in peaceful, continuous in question. The right, title and predecessors-in-interest, stood owner of the suit property, by stile and adverse to the plaintiff e defendant. on to the written statement filed made therein and reiterated the arties, the following issues were are entitled to the decree for perty? OPP. is barred because of dismissal of 87? OPD are stopped by their act and uit? OPD d for non-joinder of necessary - n n d t s e s d d y f d e e r f d y

¶12issue No. issues No plaintiffs, judgment

¶13plaintiffs Appellate of the cou was decre Argumen

¶14argued th setting as based upo on record litigation and witho which wa for the su 5) Whether the suit is not pr court fee and jurisdiction 6) Relief. After perusal of the plea tary evidence adduced by the 1 against the plaintiffs and in o.2 to 5 were decided against the and the trial court dismissed and decree dated 06.03.2003. The decision of the learned by filing an appeal, which wa e Court, vide judgment and decr urt of first instance was set asid eed. nts of the defendant Learned counsel appearing hat the learned First Appellate C side the well-reasoned findings on a proper appreciation of the p . It is submitted that the plaintif apart from the suit in question a out being able to prove owners as not maintainable. It is argue uit was that of a suit for posses

roperly valued for the purpose of ? OPD adings as well as oral and parties, the trial court decided favour of the defendant, while e defendants and in favour of the d the suit with costs, vide its trial court was assailed by the as allowed by the learned First ree 22.11.2004 and the decision de and the suit of the plaintiffs on behalf of the defendant has Court has committed an error in of the trial court, which were pleadings and evidence available ffs had failed in severalrounds of and despite failing in every court ship, filed the suit in question, ed that though the nomenclature ssion, but careful perusal of the - f d d e e s e t n s s n e e f t , e e

pleadings Article 64 been filed could hav basis of dispossess therefore, proved an State of P register of

¶15any evide Exhibit P or throug sole testim aware of prove the allegedly translation the Himac Vs. Amro and Volum

¶16proved, a considera would show that the same is fo 4 of the Limitation Act, it is urg d within 12 years from the date o ve filed a suit under Section 6 o previous possession within 0 sion, and the present suit does no same is on the basis of title o nd the same could not have bee Punjab as party, who is record f the municipal committee. It is further contended that t ence to prove their title on the -1, as the said document has no gh any official witness or throu mony of the plaintiff, no person the factum of the sanad, has s said sanad, which is in Urdu lan translated the same, has not be n is true and correct. Reliance chal Pradesh High Court in the c o Devi and others, RSA No.4323 me-1, Chapter-1 Part-N of the H It is further submitted that o all subsequent documents cou ation and this aspect of the matter

or declaration. Adverting to the ged that the said suit could have of dispossession or the plaintiffs of the Specific Relief Act on the 06 months from the date of ot fall in either of the categories, only which was required to be en done without impleading the ded as owner in the assessment the plaintiffs have not tendered e strength of the alleged sanad ot come from any official record gh any executants. Except the n or official witness or any one stepped into the witness box to nguage and even the person who een examined to certify that the is placed upon the judgment of case of Pushpa Devi and others 3 of 2013 decided on 02.12.2016 High Court Rules and Orders. once Exhibit P-1 itself was not uld not have been taken into r has not been considered by the - e e s e f , e e t d d d e e o o e f s t o e

learned F electricity show the Learned c the impug wrongly r admission statement No.4282/ No.4282,

¶17rent proce father sin disbelieve could not that the de from 195 hostile. owner in D4/1, D4 ignored.

¶18outset ref 1918 (in down by First Appellate Court. It is argu y bills and water bills were exh e possession of the defendant counsel has drawn the attention gned judgment to submit that the recorded the finding that the de n regarding the identity of th t. It is urged that there is a hu 1 and 4282 min. as 4282 min. i which is left out after the divisio On the point of adverse poss eedings, the plaintiffs admitted th nce 1955 and the relationship ed by the Rent Controller, then t have been stated to be permis efendant was owner in possessio 55 onwards, and such possessi It is contended that the defen possession by way of adverse 4/2 conferring title upon the d Per contra, learned counsel ferred to the provisions of Sectio short, 'Act of 1918') to conten the Constitutional Bench of the

ued that records reveal that the hibited in the file which would over the property in dispute. of the court to paragraph 14 of e learned first appellate court has efendant has made any kind of he suit property in its written uge difference between Khasra is the remaining part of Khasra on of 4282/1. session, it is argued that once in he possession of the defendant's p of landlord and tenant was the possession of the defendant ssive and rather it stood proved on of the land in question at least ion was open, continuous and ndant would therefore, become e possession, even if the sanad defendant's father, were to be for the plaintiffs has at the very on 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, nd that in view of the law laid e Supreme Court in the case of - e d . f s f n a a n s s t d t d e d e y , d f

Pankajak others, (2 (Amendm which con submitted limited gr lower ap interfered that law i present ca with the H judgment Kaur v. P

¶19of a Co-o Nahar Si of law en Court reg Section 4 Analysis

¶20rival part Second A Constituti (supra)tha kshi (dead) Through LRs an 2016) 6 SCC 157, Section 97 ment Act), 1976, has no applicati ntinues as a law in force, being d that the regular second appea rounds as specified under Sect ppellate Court even if the sa d with, merely because another v s settled that wherever there is a ase, the view taken by the lowe High Court. Reliance has been of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Prithvi Pal Singh, (2019) 17 SCC Learned senior counsel also p ordinate Bench of this court, i ingh and others, 2023: PHHC: nunciated in various pronouncem garding scope of interference in 1 of the Act of 1918, were consi and Findings At the outset, in context with ies, the law regarding the scop Appeal, is being briefly outlin ion bench of the Supreme C at regular second appeal would b

d others Vs. Chandrika and 7 of Code of Civil Procedure on to Section 41 of Act of 1918, g a special and local law. It is al can only be decided on the tion 41ibid and findings of the ame are erroneous, cannot be view is possible. It is submitted a judgment of reversal, as in the er appellate Court should weigh n placed in this regard upon the of India in the case of Randhir C 71. places reliance upon a judgment in the case of Tarsem Lal Vs. 138639, wherein the principles ments of the Hon'ble Supreme a Regular Second Appeal under dered. h the arguments advanced by the pe of interference in a Regular ned. It has been held by the Court in case of Pankajakshi be governed by Section 41 of the - d e , s e e e d e h e r t

s e r e r e i e

1918 Act provisions Act are p grounds o grounds a or to som having fai or usage h the proced other law error or de

¶21Pankajak of Randh t, the same being a special/loca s of Section 100 CPC. The prov pari-materia to the unamended S of interference in a second ap as mentioned therein, i.e. (a) the me custom or usage having the iled to determine some material having the force of law; and (c) dure provided by the Code of C for the time being in force whi efect in the decision of the case u The effect of the Cons kashi (supra) was considered by ir Kaur (supra), wherein it was i "10. The effect of the in Pankajakshi is that in second within the Punjab and Haryana the Code of Civil Procedu Amendment. The provisions of of Section 100 CPC are in pari

¶11Some of the judgments of th the old Section 100 are requir in Deity Pattabhiramaswamy v the scope of Section 100 CPC, 13) "13. The finding on the District Judge not on the on a consideration of evidence adduced by

al law and not by the amended visions of Section 41 of the 1918 Section 100 CPC, and therefore ppeal would be limited to the e decision being contrary to law force of law; (b) the decision issue of law or to some custom ) a substantial error or defect in Civil Procedure, 1908, or by any ich may possibly have produced upon the merits. stitution Bench judgment in y the Supreme Court in the case inter alia observed as under:- Constitution Bench judgment d appeal, the scope of interference a High Court would be the same as ure existed prior to the 1976 f Section 41 of the Punjab Act and i materia. his Court dealing with the scope of red to be discussed. In a judgment v. S. Hanymayya, while examining , held as under : (AIR p. 59, para title was arrived at by the learned e basis of any document of title but f relevant documentary and oral the parties. The learned Judge, - d e e w n m n y d n e t e s d f t g a d t l

therefore, in our opinion in setting aside the said 100 are clear and unam Judicial Committee i Singh Choudhri stated th 'There is no jurisdiction the ground of an errone or inexcusable the error The principle laid down in th innumerable cases by the Priv High Courts in this country in Midnapur Zamindary Co. Lt elucidated the principle by poin '[If] the question to be involve an issue of law were not instruments of otherwise the direct foun historical documents, ha Nor does the fact that the find based upon some documentary finding of fact (see Wali Moham

¶12Later, in a judgment, in Ks three Judges, of this Court h jurisdiction to entertain second it was erroneous. The Court he 11) "11. On a perusal of the we are satisfied that the jurisdiction under Se concurrent findings of fa then appellate court bot of adverse possession. Rai this Court held jurisdiction to entertain even if it was erroneou observed as follows : (AI

n, clearly exceeded his jurisdiction d finding. The provisions of Section mbiguous. As early as in 1891, the in Durga Choudhrain v. Jawahir hus : (SCC OnLine PC) n to entertain a second appeal on eous finding of fact, however gross r may seem to be.' his decision has been followed in vy Council as well as by different y. Again the Judicial Committee td. v. Uma Charan Mandal further nting out : (SCC OnLine PC) decided is one of fact, it does not merely because documents which of title or contracts or statutes or ndations of rights but were merely ave to be construed.' ding of the first appellate court is y evidence make it any the less a mmad v. Mohd. Bakhsh). xxxx" shitish Chandra Bose v. Commr.— held that the High Court has no d appeal on findings of fact even if eld as follows : (SCC p. 108, para e first judgment of the High Court e High Court clearly exceeded its ection 100 in reversing pure fact given by the trial court and the th on the question of title and that In Kharbuja Kuer v. Jangbahadur that the High Court had no second appeal on findings of fact us. In this connection, this Court IR pp. 1205-06, paras 5 & 7) - n n e r n s n t e r t h r y s a — o f a t s e e t r o t t

'5. It is settled jurisdiction to en ground of erroneo

¶7… As the two from a correct p finding of fact, th to interfere with t To the same effect is anoth Ramachandra Ayyar v. Ramal observed as follows : (AIR p. 3 '12. … But the High conclusions of fact reco however erroneous the s to the High Court, bec observed, however gros seem to be, there is no correct that error.'"

¶14The Division Bench of the in a judgment in Sadhu v. Kish set aside the judgment of the court appeal in terms of the pr to 1976, and held as under: "12. The scope of secon 100 of the Civil Proced Punjab Courts Act has b number of times by this that is, the Supreme Co for the appellant has a regard to Deity Pattabh 1959 SC 57, Mada Bojjappa, AIR Khanna v. Hafiz Abdul and Afsar Sheikh v. Sol These pronouncements,

law that the High Court has no ntertain a second appeal on the ous finding of fact. … *** o courts approached the evidence perspective and gave a concurrent he High Court had no jurisdiction the said finding.' her decision of this Court in V. ingam Chettiar where the Court 06, para 12) Court cannot interfere with the orded by the lower appellate court, said conclusions may appear to be cause, as the Privy Council has ss or inexcusable the error may jurisdiction under Section 100 to *** Punjab and Haryana High Court hni, 1979 SCC OnLine P&H 141 learned Single Bench in an intra-rovisions of law as it existed prior nd appeal as envisaged by Section dure Code and Section 41 of the been a matter of judicial scrutiny a Court as well as by the final court, ourt of India. The learned counsel actually made a reference in this iramaswamy v. S. Hanymayya AIR amanchi Ramappa v. Muthaluru SC 1633, Bithal Dass l Hai , 1969 SC Notes 481] leman Bibi , (1976) 2 SCC 142. in a nutshell, lay down that there - o e e t n

t e

e s y o t

- r n e a

l s R u s ]

e

¶22Gurnam S is no jurisdiction to en ground of a erroneous f inexcusable the error m that the finding of the f documentary evidence m fact. A Judge of the jurisdiction to interfere of fact given by the firs appreciation of the rel have further observed th an appeal can be said to error in law or procedur question of fact.

¶14In view of the above view that the learne jurisdiction in setting a Issue 2. The provisions unambiguous, there wa those findings. We thus judgment of the learne judgment and decree p parties are, however, lef

¶15A perusal of the aforesaid jurisdiction in second appeal is of fact on the ground that findi or inexcusable the error may se also include the findings on th The jurisdiction to interfere in there is an error in law or proc a question of fact." In a recent judgment in t Singh, 2024 SCC Online SC 96

ntertain a second appeal on the finding of fact, however gross or may seem to be. Nor does the fact first appellate court is upon some make it any the less a finding of High Court has, therefore, no in second appeal with the findings rst appellate court based upon an levant evidence. Their Lordships hat the only ground on which such o be competent is where there is an re and not merely on an error on a *** e discussion, we are clearly of the ed Single Judge exceeded his aside the findings of the fact on s of Section 100 being clear and as no scope for interference with allow the appeal and set aside the ed Single Judge and affirm the passed by the District Judge. The ft to bear their own costs." d judgments would show that the s not to interfere with the findings ngs are erroneous, however, gross eem to be. The findings of fact will he basis of documentary evidence. n the second appeal is only where cedure and not merely an error on the case of Lehna Singh vs. 69, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, - e r t e f o s n s h n a e s n d h e e e e s s l

e n

,

while refe 1918, hel unamende second ap the case o that the fi of the tria first insta this regard

¶23the first a Court and While at under Sec findings o It cannot erring to the scope of interferenc ld that the provisions thereof ed Section 100 of CPC, the sc ppeal would be on restricted gro of Randhir Kaur (supra) was r irst appellate Court, while setting al Court, is required to meet the ance. The relevant observations d are extracted as under:- "23. It is settled law that the F aside the Judgment and decree meet the reasoning given by th which in the present case h Appellate Court.

¶24xxx xxx xxx

¶25In Jagannath v. Arulappa a

(Dead) By Lrs., this Court ha improper to allow first appeal findings of the trial court and required to address all the issu assignment of cogent reasons." Thus, the position of law as appellate Court must advert to t d is required to address all the i the same time, the High Cour ction 41 of the Act of 1918 is of fact, however gross or inexcu embark upon reappreciation of

ce under Section 41 of the Act of f being pari materia with the cope of interference in regular ounds, and the law laid down in reiterated. It was however held g aside the judgment and decree reasoning given by the Court of made by the Supreme Court in First Appellate Court, while setting e of the trial court, is required to he trial court in rejecting the Will, has not been done by the First and H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith as opined that it would be wholly l without adverting to the specific d that the First Appellate Court is ues and determine the appeal upon " s stands crystallized is that that the specific findings of the trial ssues by giving cogent reasons. rt in exercise of its jurisdiction s restrained from interfering on usable the error may seem to be. evidence and substitute its own - f e r n d e f n g o

t h y c s n t l . n n . n

opinion f another pe

¶24below, the of the vie reasons m

¶25advert to t

¶26issue No failed to Ex.A/2 th at Jalandh tenancy o failed to municipal landlord-t Authority possession trespasser correction was dism Ex.DW4/2 Chaudhar the suit pr for that of the first appellate C ermissible view was possible. Having carefully gone throu e record and after considering th ew that the instant Appeal is re mentioned hereinafter. Before dwelling upon the riv the findings of the trial court and The learned Trial Court non- .1 against them primarily on connect the property in dispute he dissolution deed, wherein the har; (ii) did not place on reco of Sukhjit Engineering Works place on record any evidence l tax paid to the Municipal Com tenant relationship before the R y;(v) have taken inconsistent pl n of the defendant being p r;(vi) vide judgment Ex. DW4/2 n of entry in the assessment regis missed; and (vii) by relying up 2, it held that the father of ry of Yakka Khanna and his pos roperty which stood established

Court only on the ground that ugh the judgments of the courts he rival contentions, this Court is equired to be dismissed for the val contentions, it is apposite to d the first appellate court. -suited the plaintiffs and decided the following grounds:(i) they e with the property described in Motor Garage was stated to be rd any document pertaining to or Colonel Thakur Singh;(iii) like electricity bill, water bills, mmittee; (iv) failed to establish Rent Controller or the Appellate leas in the plaint regarding the permissive and him being a 22, the suit of the plaintiffs for ster of the Municipal Committee pon the Sanads Ex.DW4/1 and f the defendant was the First ssession remained continuous in d and proved from the electricity - t s s e o d y n e o ) , h e e a r e d t n y

and water DW4/17.

¶27show that and while given det above, law facts, how on the anv of law, p pertaining with the p detailed r misapprec even the c in dispute clear that 1, and the at 'Kapur evidence of Colone deciding about the First App view of th r charges bills placed on the file Perusal of the judgment of t t it has dealt with all issues raise e adverting to the findings of tailed reasons for arriving at it w is settled that the High Court wever, the findings of the first a vil of the grounds available, lest perversity or other serious infi g to failure of the plaintiffs to property described in Ex.A-2, the reasons that the said finding o ciation of evidence. It has corr case of the defendant in the wri e was situated at 'Jalandhar'. the various properties held by th e property in question has been d rthala'. The findings of the learn as regards tenancy of Sukhjit En el Thakur Singh, are absolutely the lis between the parties, alth same in the registered partnersh pellate Court has agreed with the he decision of the Rent Controll

as documents Ex. DW4/3 to Ex. the First Appellate Court would ed before the learned trial Court, the court of first instance, has ts own conclusions. As noticed cannot intervene in findings on appellate court have been tested t it suffers from any patent error firmity. As regards the finding connect the property in dispute e first Appellate Court has given f the trial court is based upon rectly observed that it was not itten statement that the property Having perused, Ex. A-2, it is he partners are described at page defined as a motor house situate ned trial Court regarding lack of ngineering Works or car garage y irrelevant for the purpose of hough there is a clear mention hip deed dated 25.05.1955. The e view of the trial Court that in ler and Appellate Authority, the - . d , s d n d r g e n n t y s e e f e f n e n e

relationsh and the de on the ind based upo basis of th regarding pleaded t defendant status bec

¶28as the ow the lower said sanad view of t subsequen Kapurthal dispute. T would al possession

¶29way of ad question w that in the possession testimony hip of landlord and tenant was n efendant. However, since the sa dependent cause brought by the p on ownership, it has rightly proce he documents brought on record inconsistent pleas are also im that the possession was alway t denied the relationship of lan came that of a trespasser. The learned trial Court has h wner on the basis of Sanads Ex.D r Appellate Court correctly retur ds were to be held as connected the fact that sanad Ex.P-1 stoo nt sanads were of no conse la stood divested of all rights of The water and electricity bills pla lso not be determinative of n. Although no issue regarding dverse possession was framed be was decided by the learned First e absence of the defendant havin n being open, continuous, un y, and to the contrary the claim

ot proved between the plaintiffs ame would not have any bearing plaintiffs for seeking possession eeded to decide the issue, on the d. The findings of the trial court mmaterial, as the plaintiffs have ys permissive till the time the ndlord-tenant, and thereafter his held the father of the defendant DW4/1 and Ex.DW4/2, however, rned the finding that even if the d with the property in dispute, in od issued in the year 1933, the equence, as the Maharaja of f ownership qua the property in aced on record by the defendant, him becoming the owner in g the defendant being owner by fore the trial court, however this t Appellate Court and it has held ng stated anything regarding his ninterrupted and hostile in his m always being based upon the - s g n e t e e s t , e n e f n , n y s d s s e

sanads, s person c requireme peaceful, in continu adverse to rightful o over the defendant which suc

¶30defendant maintaina fact a suit proved w allegedly Committe that a sui title, when plaintiff t

(2008) 4 records, c shows the R.V.E.Ve Temple a such plea could not be accepte claiming adverse possession ents i.e. nec vi, nec clam, nec pr open and continuous. The adver uity, in publicity and extent, t o the true owner. It must start wi owner and be actual, visible, ex statutory period. Perusal of the t would show that no date has ch adverse possession could be a Adverting to the arguments t, the first argument that h ability of the suit, which accordin t for declaration, on the basis of without impleading the State o recorded as owner in the Assess ee. The said argument cannot be it for possession can be filed w n the Court finds that there is no to the property (see Anathula S SCC 594). It is also well se cannot be taken as evidence con e person liable to pay the rates an enkatachala Gounder vs. Arul and Others (2003) 8 SCC 752).

d. It is well settled law that a has to prove three classic recario, that is the possession is rse possession must be adequate to prove that the possession is ith a wrongful disposition of the xclusive, hostile and continued e written statement filed by the s been mentioned therein from ascertained. of the learned counsel for the has been raised is regarding ng to the learned counsel was in title, which could not have been of Punjab as party, who was sment Register of the Municipal e countenanced. It is settled law without seeking a declaration of o serious cloud on the title of the Sudhakar Vs. P. Buchi Reddy, ttled that entries in municipal nferring title, and the same only nd taxes of the municipality (see lmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Even otherwise the defendant is - a c s e s e d e m e g n n s l w f e , l y e . s

precluded in the wri of the sui regard. T statement any entry fact is de prove the dispute". non-joind that the d heirs of h against th defendant was for c stood in t same wou

¶31prove the accepted, that as it m the Evide produced proper, th d from raising any such objection itten statement, where there is n it in question, nor any specific o To the contrary, the defendant in t has inter-alia averred that, "if y in their names in the Municip enied, the said entry carries no e title of the plaintiffs or the The findings of the learned trial der of necessary party, are also defendant had only objected to n his father Chaudhary Hans Ra he defendant. No appeal or cr t. Records reveal that the dispute correction of the entries in the m the name of their father, Shri Hu uld have no bearing on the suit ts proving their title. The second argument rega eir title on the basis of the sa as no such argument was raise may, it is settled law that as per ence Act, when a document is p from any custody, which the hen the Court may presume vari

n, which is beyond its pleadings no such mention of the dismissal objection has been taken in this n paragraph No.4 of the written f the plaintiffs are able to prove pal Assessment Register, which weight and value and does not eir father over the property in Court on the issue pertaining to important, which would show non-impleadment of other legal aj and such issue was decided ross-objection was filed by the e in the suit filed by the plaintiff municipal record, which earlier ussan Lal, prior to 1993-94. The filed by the plaintiffs, basis the arding the plaintiffs' failure to anad Ex. P-1, can also not be ed before the Courts below. Be r the provisions of Section 90 of proved to be 30 years old and is e Courts in particular consider ious facts. It is pertinent to note - s l s n e h t n o w l d e f r e e o e e f s r e

that the le judgment arose bet translation and keepi on record already on for addit considera defendant is miscon

¶32High Cou not come facts. The Volume-1 no releva subordina Punjabi r

¶334282 min this regar learned Fi of khasra earned lower Appellate Court h , recorded that during the pen tween the plaintiffs and the d n of the sanad Ex. P-1. Both s ing in view the fact that the tran d by the defendant was in co n record as Exhibit P-1/A, the tional evidence. Once the co ation the contents of the translat t himself, the argument regardin ceived. The reliance upon the judg urt in the case of Pushpa Devi to the aid of the defendant as th e reference to the language of 1, Chapter-1, Part-N of the High ance as it only mandates tha ate to the High Court shall be Pu region. The same does not pr t in Urdu language and its transla The argument regarding var n. and wrong finding regarding rd by the first appellate Court, irst Appellate Court has merely no. 5700/ 4282 min. in the writ

as in paragraphs 10 to 12 of its dency of the appeal, a dispute defendant regarding the correct ubmitted their own translations nslated copy of the sanad placed onsonance with the translation court dismissed the application ourts below have taken into ted sanad, as relied upon by the ng admissibility of the document ment of the Himachal Pradesh and others (supra), would also he same was based upon its own f the Court as mandated under h Court Rules and Orders, is of at the language of the Courts unjabi in Gurmukh script in the reclude the reliance upon any ation in Gurmukhi script. riance in khasra No.4282/1 and admission by the defendant in is also without any basis. The recorded the factum of mention tten statement and has thereafter - s e t s d n n o e t h o n r f s e y d n e n r

returned t 4281/1. T numbers m registered also state testimony instant ap

¶34on the bas reasons re

35.

(i) the C evidence; by applyin burden of appellant, learned l inferences conclusio sifted thro perspectiv hereinabo some cus envisaged materia to the finding that the said khasra The records would reveal that th mentioned in the plaint matche d dissolution deed and partnersh ed that the property is compri y. Such finding of fact would n peal. Lastly the argument regardi sis of adverse possession, is also ecorded above. It is well settled that findings ourts below have ignored mat

(ii) the Courts have drawn wro ng the law erroneously; or (iii) th f proof. Testing the arguments , the Court does not find that lower Appellate Court are pe s or erroneous application of ns, the lower Appellate Court ough the evidence and recorded ve. The findings of the First ove, cannot be stated to be con tom or usage having the force d under Section 41 of the Pun o the unamended Section 100 o

a number is part of khasra no. he area comprising in the khasra d with the sanad Ex.P-1-A and hip deed and the defendant has sed in khasra No.4282, in his not warrant any inference in the ing ownership of the defendant o without any substance, for the s of fact can only be disturbed if terial evidence or acted on no ng inferences from proved facts he Courts have wrongly cast the of the learned counsel for the the findings arrived at by the erverse or based upon wrong f law. Before arriving at its is found to have meticulously d its own findings in the correct Appellate Court, as discussed ntrary to settled law or against of law or on any other ground njab Courts Act which is pari of the Code of Civil Procedure. - . a d s s e t e f o s e e e g s y t d t d i .

Having c Appellate opinion th wrong inf

¶36decree do present ap

12th Februa 'raj-dinesh' Wh

Wh

carefully examined the reasons e Court as extracted hereinabove hat the same cannot be stated ferences or erroneous application In view thereof, it is eviden oes not suffer from infirmity ppeal fails and is dismissed. ary, 2026

hether speaking/reasoned: hether Reportable:

recorded by the learned First e, this Court is of the considered to be perverse or based upon n of law. nt that impugned judgment and or illegality, and as such, the ( ROHIT KAPOOR ) JUDGE

- t d n d e